OT - Perhaps the worst sports' article ever written

[HuskyFan32]

How can anyone think anything except that you're a hater?

I mean, in the first Super Bowl, Brady lead them downfield for the inning field goal in 1:20 seconds while backed up.
In Super Bowl #2, Brady broke all time Super Bowl records for yards and completions, a record that hasn't been broken to this day. You're going to give credit to Vinatieri? Do you even realize Vinatieri missed two easy field goals that game? He was 1 for 3. That game should have been over long before the very end if it weren't for Vinatieri choking early in the game. In Super Bowl #3, Vinatieri did not kick the FG in the 4th quarter. Patriots went into it with a 24-14 lead and basically took the air out of the ball. They gave up a late TD and pinned McNabb at their 2 yard line with under a minute to go.

It's just absurd for you to say offense wasn't a focus back then. Look up how the Patriots lit up the Steelers offensively back then (and needed to because the Steelers scored 30). Look up how the defense gave up 29 points in 31 minutes to Carolina, so Brady had to carry them, breaking Super Bowl records in the meantime. He was methodical against the Eagles. Even in their playoff losses in subsequent years, the Patriots put up enough points to win (34 against the Colts in the AFCCG). Brady's flubs have been in the first Super Bowl against the Giants, against the Ravens 2 years ago and against the Jets last year. He was passingly OK against the Ravens if you look at the numbers. He played well yesterday.

The Welker catch, I disagree with you about that.The Giants were in a cover 3, and the Patriots knew they had them. All Welker had to do was sit in the zone. Normally he would have thrown it inside because that's the soft spot in such a zone, but Brady saw the Giants CB and safeties were totally confused and that the CB had not come off his man to take Welker (which would have Welker coming over the middle). So the safety, seeing that, didn't break for Branch running down the sideline, and instead held his position over the middle. What should have happened is the CB should have picked up Welker and the safety should have picked up Branch. instead, the CB hugged the sideline and the safety, realizing this, never broke. That left Welker wide open. But if Brady had done the thing Welker expected him to, thrown it inside, the safety would have been in position. Instead, he threw it to the outside because he saw the CB was sticking to Branch. The problem was two things: Welker had turned his body upfield as though he was going to score. He should have just sat down in the zone and adjusted long before the ball got there. Second, Welker is short, and one of the great things about him is that he often makes those acrobatic catches, because he has to. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a star in the NFL. This is what's expected of him. A taller receiver get up there and catches that with more ease. Welker has to work harder and he usually does.



An incredible offensive line? You have to tell the scouts that because they're the ones that skipped on drafting all the UDFAs that have fronted for Brady over his career, such immortals as Brandon Gorin, Joe Andruzzi, Stephen Neal, Dan Connolly, Mike Compton, Russ Hochstein, Gene Mruckowski, Grant Williams, and several others. If these guys were so good, how come no one drafted them? I can understand one or two bonafide UDFAs becoming stars (like Brian Waters currently) but by and large, the Patriots have had a patchwork offensive line, and when those players left the Patriots they were never heard from again. These OLs owe Brady their paychecks because his command of the pocket and his quick release makes them look really good. The only OLs drafted high by the Patriots have been Mankins, Light, Solder, and Vollmer. Prior to that, they were UDFAs.

You need to look at Brady's stats for throwing downfield prior to YAC. They are on the very high end. He started as a dink-and-dunk QB, but that was long long ago. After 2003, he's been at the top of the league throwing far downfield. As for being pressured, that too is overblown. Again, Brady's passer rating is very high when it comes to getting pressured. He thrives off of it actually since he's excellent in pocket awareness. You can get to him though and he has succumbed to pressure in the past, just like all QBs.

You're denying greatness and thinking up all sorts of excuses.

0-14 when throwing the ball 20 yards in the air in the past two super bowls. Hes been outplayed in 5 of his last 6 playoff games twice by Joe Flacco, twice by Eli and once by Mark Sanchez. The only qb hes outplayed in the playoffs is Tim Tebow. I said he was great, but hes not this god that the media makes him out to be. Look at the Colts when Manning went down. They instantly became the worst team in the league. The Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

 

[upstater]

0-14 when throwing the ball 20 yards in the air in the past two super bowls. Hes been outplayed in 5 of his last 6 playoff games twice by Joe Flacco, twice by Eli and once by Mark Sanchez. The only qb hes outplayed in the playoffs is Tim Tebow. I said he was great, but hes not this god that the media makes him out to be. Look at the Colts when Manning went down. They instantly became the worst team in the league. The Pats went 11-5 without Brady.

So after I refuted all the drivel above, that's the best you have?

The fact is, the Patriots defense has been awful and the Patriots have been retooling. This didn't start this year. It started a while ago. Two years ago against the Ravens, who was Brady throwing to? Do you even know? He did have a poor performance against the Giants 4 years ago. He's been in 23 playoff games. He's allowed to put up a stinker. Then came the two additional losses.

But, man, you are nuts out of your mind if you think he was outplayed by Flacco twice. You continue to make up crazy stuff out of your butt.

11-5? Had to do with a good backup QB and easy schedule. Previous year they were 16-0 against the toughest schedule ever. They got an easy schedule, so easy that SOS was poor enough to keep an 11-5 team out of the playoffs. After Manning came Curtis Painter. And, Manning wasn't coming off a 16-0 year. There's your difference.

But the idea that Flacco was better a few years ago is preposterous.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

In a parallel universe where one compares two teams with each other and follows the rule that if a team beats a team twice, once at the other team's home stadium, that the winner of those games is "worse" than the losing team which is "better", I grant to you that the Giants are that worse team and the Patriots are that better team. However, on Planet Earth, where I happen to live and make my living, I don't think I'm breaking any cardinal rules of empiricism when I say that the Giants beating the Patriots twice, once in a stadium in Foxboro, Massachusetts where the Patriots have locker rooms and offices and where their fans buy and occupy most of the seats, and then in a game that both teams fully understood to be the "championship" game, is extremely compelling evidence that the Giants are, speaking completely objectively here, the better team. Some would use the phrase "demonstrable evidence" to describe the Giant's two wins over the Patriots, and I would not object to that ussage on grounds of language or logic. Now, you may want to make this an unprecedented-in-a-football-season best of five game series and hope the Patriots pull out three in a row in order to defend your counterintuitive conclusion. Or you may think that the net points the teams scored against uncommon opponents (including, I should point out, the single, solitary, lonely team with a better than .500 record that the Patriots actually managed to defeat in a "game" this season by means of a missed chip-shot field goal) is somehow dispositive of the question. But I have to point out that those metrics are evidence that you are operating under a delusion I like to call "Massachusetts Thinking".

I suggest you create an objective metric for "better team" that compares two teams in relation to each other but doesn't take into consideration how those two teams actually perform against each other in "games" and submit that metric to the NFL. In the interim, perhaps you can create a "Better Team" trophy by wrapping a football in aluminum foil and nailing said tinfoil ball to a two-by-four and invite the Patriots to accept the trophy following a ticker tape parade you will be throwing for them in your basement.

First of all, totally agreed with the original sentiment. Boston sports columnist is a total idiot.

Second, pretty much agree with the above, enough to to note . . .

Third, I had imagined posting something genuinely sympathetic to Patriots fans who had just watched the UConn-Louisville horror show, with the intention of conveying that I at least was happy enough about the Giants that nothing could kill my buzz. After reading some of the inane stuff above, I'm quite confident that my post would have been misinterpreted as needless gloating, so I'm glad I didn't post it. Oh wait, I sort of just did. Oh wait, again: to those Patriots fans committed to "Giants suck, and we're better,"you spin my head.

In the Super Bowl,

• the significant questionable calls/non-calls were against the Giants' favor;
• opening coin toss gave desired second-half advantage to Pats;
• more Giants were injured during the game;

A team that falters in the middle of the season (for a whole host of reasons), finds itself with .500 record, and thereafter wins out to be crowned as champion, sounds like a vaguely familiar fact pattern. Giants avenged two losses and won twice against the best team in the AFC.

OK, how about this: maybe New Orleans would have beaten the Giants . . . and maybe Ohio State, North Carolina & Kansas would have beaten UConn. Happy now?

 

[upstater]

In the Super Bowl,

• the significant questionable calls/non-calls were against the Giants' favor;

Eh, that's pretty homeristic if you ask me.

OI'm not sure the loss of your TEs was significant. I don't think Brady got hurt on the Tuck sack, but people like Esiason think he broke his collarbone. People are also noting he was 20-23 with 2 TDs before the sack with a 144 passer rating (and his three incompletes were the safety throwaway and the two JPP batdowns). After the sack, his numbers dipped, but I think it had a lot more to do with the INT he threw and the drops, rather than injury. if he really did do damage to the shoulder, I'd take that back.

Dilfer and Young were incredulous about the safety call, they thought it was bad. I think the refs were within the rules, but still very surprised they called it. Can't remember seeing that before, personally. I think the non-PI on Moore was the proper call. The Boothe hold totally turned Wilfork around so Jacobs could run right by where Wilfork should have been. Not a guarantee that gets called there each time but you can't quibble with it. Patriots were similarly called for a hold on the next possession, and though that was a clear hold (arm across the neck) the refs never called the same thing happening to Patriots rushers before that (Boothe in fact twice had a choke on Deadrick earlier in the game in clear view). What about seconds ticking away after the Bradshaw TD and Brady calling timeout? I can't see how you think refs were favoring Patriots.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Eh, that's pretty homeristic if you ask me.

OI'm not sure the loss of your TEs was significant. I don't think Brady got hurt on the Tuck sack, but people like Esiason think he broke his collarbone. People are also noting he was 20-23 with 2 TDs before the sack with a 144 passer rating (and his three incompletes were the safety throwaway and the two JPP batdowns). After the sack, his numbers dipped, but I think it had a lot more to do with the INT he threw and the drops, rather than injury. if he really did do damage to the shoulder, I'd take that back.

Dilfer and Young were incredulous about the safety call, they thought it was bad. I think the refs were within the rules, but still very surprised they called it. Can't remember seeing that before, personally. I think the non-PI on Moore was the proper call. The Boothe hold totally turned Wilfork around so Jacobs could run right by where Wilfork should have been. Not a guarantee that gets called there each time but you can't quibble with it. Patriots were similarly called for a hold on the next possession, and though that was a clear hold (arm across the neck) the refs never called the same thing happening to Patriots rushers before that (Boothe in fact twice had a choke on Deadrick earlier in the game in clear view). What about seconds ticking away after the Bradshaw TD and Brady calling timeout? I can't see how you think refs were favoring Patriots.

OK, I retract that line as unnecessary, while further wishing that we can unite as Huskies fans for the days ahead.

 

[Reno]

Eh, that's pretty homeristic if you ask me.

OI'm not sure the loss of your TEs was significant. I don't think Brady got hurt on the Tuck sack, but people like Esiason think he broke his collarbone. People are also noting he was 20-23 with 2 TDs before the sack with a 144 passer rating (and his three incompletes were the safety throwaway and the two JPP batdowns). After the sack, his numbers dipped, but I think it had a lot more to do with the INT he threw and the drops, rather than injury. if he really did do damage to the shoulder, I'd take that back.

Dilfer and Young were incredulous about the safety call, they thought it was bad. I think the refs were within the rules, but still very surprised they called it. Can't remember seeing that before, personally. I think the non-PI on Moore was the proper call. The Boothe hold totally turned Wilfork around so Jacobs could run right by where Wilfork should have been. Not a guarantee that gets called there each time but you can't quibble with it. Patriots were similarly called for a hold on the next possession, and though that was a clear hold (arm across the neck) the refs never called the same thing happening to Patriots rushers before that (Boothe in fact twice had a choke on Deadrick earlier in the game in clear view). What about seconds ticking away after the Bradshaw TD and Brady calling timeout? I can't see how you think refs were favoring Patriots.

You got just about everything wrong in this post. Congrats.

 

[upstater]

OK, I retract that line as unnecessary, while further wishing that we can unite as Huskies fans for the days ahead.

Well, Congrats to the Giants certainly the better team on Sunday.

I watched the game last night in a fog. Wonder if the Huskies are Patriots fans.

 

[upstater]

You got just about everything wrong in this post. Congrats.

Thanks for the compliment. It's good to know exactly what was wrong.

 

[FASTEDDY]

He has the brain of a 4-year-old - no sense in arguing with him.

Also, to the person who said this article is a Boston thing: I'm pretty sure New York is about as bad.

You are so classy. Way to go.

 

[DrewDog85]

The Giants were the better team because they won !! That's how it works,,, the best team is the team that wins barring any crazy officiating which did not exist on Sunday.

 

[Prezidint]

Brady and Kemba have a lot in common.

Take Brady off the Pats, and put in all but one or two QBs, and they don't sniff the AFC championship game.

It's ridiculous to argue that the guy is not in the top 5 all-time QBs. He's won 3 and he's been in 5. And not like Bradshaw or Starr, with the same crew. He's done it with a lot of scrubs.

Let me put it this way . . .

Eli is a phenomenally clutch QB - probably the greatest since Joe.

But he had a lot more to work with than did Brady, who didn't even have a healthy Gronk.

End of day, I don't know how any fans of football don't appreciate how great Brady is, and I'll never, ever, understand why people want to rag on a guy's skill/talent just because they're on an opposing team.

As much as I hated, for example, DeJuan Blair, I always understood that the guy was a beast, and a hell of a college player.

 

[Prezidint]

The Giants were the better team because they won !! That's how it works,,, the best team is the team that wins barring any crazy officiating which did not exist on Sunday.

Huh? It depends on what you mean by "better team." I happen to think the Giants had the better team, and that the Pats played to a higher percent of their total ability.

But winning only proves who was better that day.

Otherwise, your argument would be that Nova was better than GTown back in the day when they got coked up and rode Pinkny to a title.

And, really, you wouldn't be making that argument, would you?

 

[HuskyFan32]

So after I refuted all the drivel above, that's the best you have?

The fact is, the Patriots defense has been awful and the Patriots have been retooling. This didn't start this year. It started a while ago. Two years ago against the Ravens, who was Brady throwing to? Do you even know? He did have a poor performance against the Giants 4 years ago. He's been in 23 playoff games. He's allowed to put up a stinker. Then came the two additional losses.

But, man, you are nuts out of your mind if you think he was outplayed by Flacco twice. You continue to make up crazy stuff out of your butt.

11-5? Had to do with a good backup QB and easy schedule. Previous year they were 16-0 against the toughest schedule ever. They got an easy schedule, so easy that SOS was poor enough to keep an 11-5 team out of the playoffs. After Manning came Curtis Painter. And, Manning wasn't coming off a 16-0 year. There's your difference.

But the idea that Flacco was better a few years ago is preposterous.

You are acting like Im saying Brady sucks. Hes easily a top 3 qb in the league and top 7 possibly 5 all time. But that doesnt mean hes not overrated. I love it. Blame the Pats D. They gave up 21 pts on Sunday and 17 four years ago. His amazing offense managed to score 14 and 17 pts so yeah lets blame the D. Easy schedule? The Pats had the biggest joke of a schedule Ive ever seen this year. They "beat" one team with a winning record, and that was the Ravens who quite clearly shouldve won that game. Facts are facts man. Tom terrific is now 6-6 with 17 picks in his last 12 playoff games. Go ahead and come up with your excuses for that.

 

[upstater]

You are acting like Im saying Brady sucks. Hes easily a top 3 qb in the league and top 7 possibly 5 all time. But that doesnt mean hes not overrated. I love it. Blame the Pats D. They gave up 21 pts on Sunday and 17 four years ago. His amazing offense managed to score 14 and 17 pts so yeah lets blame the D. Easy schedule? The Pats had the biggest joke of a schedule Ive ever seen this year. They "beat" one team with a winning record, and that was the Ravens who quite clearly shouldve won that game. Facts are facts man. Tom terrific is now 6-6 with 17 picks in his last 12 playoff games. Go ahead and come up with your excuses for that.

He played well this Sunday. No one said they didn't have an easy schedule this year, but that point is totally irrelevant since you were the one comparing 2007 to 2008. I mean, what does your point about this year's schedule prove? NOTHING.

The amazing offense was missing its biggest weapon on Sunday, you may have noticed that, because otherwise this offense gained more yards than any since the 2000 Rams. Yes, it was a good offense.

Ravens should have won that game? Based on what? A play knocked away by a Patriot? Or the tie FG? IF IF IF. If Brady squats on the ball instead of throwing a crazy INT after a Spikes INT, the Ravens don't sniff anything at the end. Crazy to play the If game. IF SF doesn't have a brain fart in a return game twice, or manages to drop two Eli ducks, the Giants lose too!

Brady's playoff record and stats are still through the roof, and even the last 12 games he has had good games and bad, as many good as bad. No one seems to remember that Tom through 2005 did not have great playoff performances every game. Go back and look at the Titans, Steelers, Broncos and Raiders games. They won those. Because of the defense. Other times, they won games because of the offense. Point is, there's not a great deal of difference.

Heck, even Brady's performance against the Ravens is underrated. Look at the yards gained against that D, and realize the Patriots ran the ball for TDs. So people moaning about the lack of TDs thrown should consider that points are what counts.

 

[BlueMAB]

I hate the Pats, but I have a hard time understanding how someone could admit Brady is a top 5 QB of all time and then call him "overrated".

Brady is easily top 3, and probably the greatest ever by the time he's done. There are about 26, 27 teams in the NFL that would kill to have a guy perform as "poorly" as Brady has. I still believe Peyton Manning (when healthy) is better. If Brady and Manning traded teams as rookies, Peyton would have all of the rings Brady does, plus the MVPs. Brady had a much, much, better defense for most of his career.

Who cares, the Giants claimed their 4th super bowl, cemented their place with the royalty of NFL franchises, and Eli and Coughlin just punched their tickets to the HOF.

 

[upstater]

I hate the Pats, but I have a hard time understanding how someone could admit Brady is a top 5 QB of all time and then call him "overrated".

Brady is easily top 3, and probably the greatest ever by the time he's done. There are about 26, 27 teams in the NFL that would kill to have a guy perform as "poorly" as Brady has. I still believe Peyton Manning (when healthy) is better. If Brady and Manning traded teams as rookies, Peyton would have all of the rings Brady does, plus the MVPs. Brady had a much, much, better defense for most of his career.

Who cares, the Giants claimed their 4th super bowl, cemented their place with the royalty of NFL franchises, and Eli and Coughlin just punched their tickets to the HOF.

HOF? Based on what just happened to Parcells, I have my doubts. I think Coughlin is assured more than Eli. Manning doesn't have the stats, and without those, he isn't getting in, but he could get those stats soon with the WR core he has. Right now, he's like Jim Plunkett. 2 SB victories without the great regular seasons.

 

[HuskyFan32]

He played well this Sunday. No one said they didn't have an easy schedule this year, but that point is totally irrelevant since you were the one comparing 2007 to 2008. I mean, what does your point about this year's schedule prove? NOTHING.

The amazing offense was missing its biggest weapon on Sunday, you may have noticed that, because otherwise this offense gained more yards than any since the 2000 Rams. Yes, it was a good offense.

Ravens should have won that game? Based on what? A play knocked away by a Patriot? Or the tie FG? IF IF IF. If Brady squats on the ball instead of throwing a crazy INT after a Spikes INT, the Ravens don't sniff anything at the end. Crazy to play the If game. IF SF doesn't have a brain fart in a return game twice, or manages to drop two Eli ducks, the Giants lose too!

Brady's playoff record and stats are still through the roof, and even the last 12 games he has had good games and bad, as many good as bad. No one seems to remember that Tom through 2005 did not have great playoff performances every game. Go back and look at the Titans, Steelers, Broncos and Raiders games. They won those. Because of the defense. Other times, they won games because of the offense. Point is, there's not a great deal of difference.

Heck, even Brady's performance against the Ravens is underrated. Look at the yards gained against that D, and realize the Patriots ran the ball for TDs. So people moaning about the lack of TDs thrown should consider that points are what counts.

Ok so we agree. Brady is a great qb but is overrated and not the god everyone makes him out to be. He's been average in the playoffs since their last SB victory. That doesn't discount the fact that he has three rings but it does knock him down a peg.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Eh, that's pretty homeristic if you ask me.

OI'm not sure the loss of your TEs was significant. I don't think Brady got hurt on the Tuck sack, but people like Esiason think he broke his collarbone. People are also noting he was 20-23 with 2 TDs before the sack with a 144 passer rating (and his three incompletes were the safety throwaway and the two JPP batdowns). After the sack, his numbers dipped, but I think it had a lot more to do with the INT he threw and the drops, rather than injury. if he really did do damage to the shoulder, I'd take that back.

Dilfer and Young were incredulous about the safety call, they thought it was bad. I think the refs were within the rules, but still very surprised they called it. Can't remember seeing that before, personally. I think the non-PI on Moore was the proper call. The Boothe hold totally turned Wilfork around so Jacobs could run right by where Wilfork should have been. Not a guarantee that gets called there each time but you can't quibble with it. Patriots were similarly called for a hold on the next possession, and though that was a clear hold (arm across the neck) the refs never called the same thing happening to Patriots rushers before that (Boothe in fact twice had a choke on Deadrick earlier in the game in clear view). What about seconds ticking away after the Bradshaw TD and Brady calling timeout? I can't see how you think refs were favoring Patriots.

Let's add two noncalls on illegal hands to the face on stiff arms where the Giants got the face mask each time.

 

[upstater]

Ok so we agree. Brady is a great qb but is overrated and not the god everyone makes him out to be. He's been average in the playoffs since their last SB victory. That doesn't discount the fact that he has three rings but it does knock him down a peg.

Average compared to whom?
You honestly think Montana didn't have just as many stinkers as Brady?
Brady is not Montana--not yet anyway--but the fact is, Montana had a lot of stinkers as well.
It's the typical ebb and flow.
No QB, no matter how good, can do it by himself. The Patriots could have easily lost two of the Super Bowls they won, despite Brady playing flawlessly. I think he had a good performance the other night, it was no better or worse than his performance against the Eagles in the Super Bowl, a game the Patriots had in hand.
These games turn on one play. The Patriots were one play from losing to the Rams and Panthers. One play away from beating the Giants both times. One play from beating the Colts and facing the Bears in the Super Bowl.
You take the wins with the losses, and then you look back at the stats and see that he is the same guy.
No one talks about his 4 interception game against the Broncos knocking the Patriots out of the playoffs in the interim year between the Super Bowl victories. That game was as bad as his games against the Ravens and jets that they lost.

This is all selective reasoning. It's just like someone saying Montana was undefeated in Super Bowls, something that Brady will never match. But I can't understand crediting a QB for his team losing prior to Super Bowls. That makes little sense to me. You look at the total record.